4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly involve questions of fact as these would require the examination and determination of the evidentiary weight of the documents submitted by the latter, specifically the medical certificate issued by Dr. Vicaldo and the Deed of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim executed by him. They posit that factual issues may not be passed upon by this Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and Andrada did not cite any circumstances that could warrant exemption from this rule. On the merits, the respondents argue that Andrada's entitlement for disability benefits was negated by the pronouncement of his fitness to work by Dr. Ramos, the companydesignated physician, and by Dr. Faylona, the physician who treated him extensively. They stress that the CA was correct in not giving weight on the medical assessment of Andrada's private doctor, Dr. Vicaldo, because the same was not supported by any medical record and was issued after a single medical check-up done merely ten days after his surgery. They assert that Andrada's alleged disability is not compensable because his umbilical hernia was pre-existing. Lastly, they contend that the Deed of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim is valid, and cover all possible claims that Andrada may have against them including the disability benefits. The Court’s Ruling From a perusal of the arguments of Andrada, it is quite apparent that this petition is raising questions of facts inasmuch as this Court is being asked to revisit and assess anew the factual findings of the CA and the NLRC. Andrada is fundamentally assailing the findings of the CA and the NLRC that the evidence on record did not support his claim for disability benefits. In effect, he would have the Court sift through, calibrate and re-examine the credibility and probative value of the evidence on record so as to ultimately decide whether or not there is sufficient basis to hold Agemar Manning and Sonnet Shipping accountable for refusing to pay for his disability benefits under the POEA's Revised Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, which is deemed written in his contract of employment. This clearly involves a factual inquiry, the determination of which is the statutory function of the NLRC.[14] Elementary is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Questions of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve. [15] Only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari criticizing decisions of the CA. Moreover, findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court.[16] In exceptional cases, however, the Court may be urged to probe and resolve factual issues when there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence to support the findings of the tribunal or the court below, or when too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts submitted by the parties or, where the LA and the NLRC came up with conflicting positions.[17] In the case at bench, considering the conflicting findings of the LA, on one hand, and the NLRC and the CA, on the other, this Court is impelled to resolve the factual issues along with the legal ones. The core issue is whether or not Andrada is entitled to disability benefits on account of his medical condition. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55246 5/11